§Why CasetextPricing

Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Woodbolt Distribution, LLC et al

REPLY in Support of 156 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM on Woodbolts Antitrust And Unfair Competition Counterclaims On The 865 Patent and Request For Judicial Notice

42 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 254,951 times   280 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 268,707 times   367 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 62,229 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  4. Papasan v. Allain

    478 U.S. 265 (1986)   Cited 16,788 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Ex parte Young would not support a suit against a state for ongoing liability for an alleged past breach of trust, since "continuing payment of the income from the lost corpus is essentially equivalent in economic terms to a one-time restoration of the lost corpus itself"

  5. Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.

    549 U.S. 118 (2007)   Cited 2,558 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"

  6. Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Limited Partnership

    564 U.S. 91 (2011)   Cited 1,157 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 282 ’s presumption of validity in litigation imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on defendants seeking to prove invalidity

  7. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,095 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss

  8. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

    508 U.S. 49 (1993)   Cited 1,137 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding litigants immune from an antitrust claim under Noerr-Pennington immunity

  9. United States v. Grinnell Corp.

    384 U.S. 563 (1966)   Cited 2,649 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding a series of three acquisitions "eliminated any possibility of an outbreak of competition" and thereby "perfected the monopoly power to exclude competitors and fix prices."

  10. Mine Workers v. Pennington

    381 U.S. 657 (1965)   Cited 1,627 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that immunity extends to petitioning conduct “either standing alone or as part of a broader scheme”

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 348,231 times   929 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,063 times   1055 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  13. Section 282 - Presumption of validity; defenses

    35 U.S.C. § 282   Cited 3,903 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Granting a presumption of validity to patents

  14. Section 101 - Inventions patentable

    35 U.S.C. § 101   Cited 3,418 times   2199 Legal Analyses
    Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

  15. Section 120 - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States

    35 U.S.C. § 120   Cited 593 times   109 Legal Analyses
    Granting an earlier priority date to later applications for inventions that were disclosed in a previous application

  16. Section 1.78 - Claiming benefit of earlier filing date and cross-references to other applications

    37 C.F.R. § 1.78   Cited 65 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that an applicant can file a continuation application to adjust claims of the patent

  17. Section 1.98 - Content of information disclosure statement

    37 C.F.R. § 1.98   Cited 41 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Requiring an applicant to provide the "date" for each publication listed in an IDS